Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[TransitAngst]

I started writing this comment a while ago and never posted it. So it has some overlap with Hatman's post on the National Transit Database numbers.

Originally Posted by Hatman

In the UTA Network study, FrontRunner operating costs are pegged at $0.02 per passenger mile, assuming 390 passengers on the train. 390 passengers is a full train (every seat taken) without a comet car. With the comet car added, the price stands to go down a little further.

Right. When the train is full, it is more cost effective, due to greater capacity. But we have to include the not so full trains too.

The numbers are also not as good when looked at per trip and per hour, rather than per mile.

NTD numbers here

For 2013, operating expense per unlinked passenger trip was $5.68 for bus, $2.39 for LR, $9.35 for FR, and $7.73 for commuter bus.

Operating expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour was $120.36 for bus, $83.78 for LR, $359.49 for FR, and $145.13 for commuter bus.

I assume operating expense per vehicle revenue hour does not change based upon ridership--that it was the cost for running buses and trains. This is the number I was looking at when I said FR is relatively expensive to run: nearly three buses could be run per hour compared to one FR train. In reality, the conversion is probably not that simple, but it still provides some reference in the difference in cost. Commuter bus is also cheaper to run per hour.

I thought it was a general truism that running an empty train costs more than running an empty bus, but LR is cheaper per hour.

I don't think the opening of the south line would make a difference in per hour costs.

Operating expense per passenger mile was $1.44 for bus, $0.53 for LR, $0.33 for FR, and $0.45 for commuter bus.

So the gap between FrontRunner and commuter buses isn't quite so bad.

I would estimate that most of the people on it are not the 'typical' 9-5 commuter.

Maybe. I was not clear. I don't really care whether riders are white collar or not. Based upon my personal experiences, FR ridership is more "peaked" compared to other lines. I am not saying it isn't the only line in the system that is, but there are other lines which are less peaked. Like the blue line or the 200. Again, based only upon personal experience, their ratio of peak/off peak ridership seems more even.

College students make up a significant portion of the ridership, and they need transportation all day (and all night).

They also need late night bus service to and from campuses.

FrontRunner trains, running on their own tracks, are also cheaper to run than a commuter train running on leased freight tracks, BTW.

I wasn't aware, and that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know.

Then there is the staffing.

But paying even a part-time train host adds up over time. In addition to paying for the extra perks like bathrooms and wifi.

All this means that FrontRunner is one of the cheapest-to-operate commuter rail system in the country.

Agreed, and I understand why UTA would want to take advantage of that as much as possible. But it is still expensive to operate. 15 minute frequency service should be devoted to lines that are less peaked, that can take advantage of that extra service on the off hours. Right now some FR stations are in the middle of nowhere; passengers can't walk to them, or walk to any destination when they exit. Doubling frequency to 15 minutes and nearly doubling ridership will not lower the cost per passenger--it will stay about the same (Or even be worse (?), because right now FR runs hourly on the off peak).

I can't be the only person who has thought about running a parallel bus service to supplement FR on off peak/Sunday service, if the ridership is low enough that a commuter bus could accommodate it.

On another note, for more context about Houston, I would suggest reading Walker's blog posts about it: Don't let us make it look easy! The Houston redesign will make many people's lives better, but it was a politically difficult, painful process.

[TransitAngst]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Does anyone remember the history behind the parking garages that UTA built at the Jordan Valley station on the Red Line, why are the parking structure not being used?

If I remember correctly, the feds allowed UTA to build them with leftover funds from the LR project. I have seen parked cars in at least one of them, so I think you can use them. At first they tried to charge for parking, and of course no one was willing to pay for it, so they just opened them up.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by TransitAngst

If I remember correctly, the feds allowed UTA to build them with leftover funds from the LR project. I have seen parked cars in at least one of them, so I think you can use them. At first they tried to charge for parking, and of course no one was willing to pay for it, so they just opened them up.

I know one of them is blocked off from access. It's not like many people board at that station anyway, not enough to fill one, let alone two. It seems like UTA could have built the garages in a much better location. Oh well.

Maybe when that area develops into a true TOD, they can use the structures for resident parking.

[Hatman]

I remember something to do with sharing the garages with a development that so far hasn't happened yet (with the blame probably going to the recession). Something along the lines of a transit oriented development UTA was trying to encourage by sharing some of the costs, but it hasn't panned out yet. It looks like a bad mistake now, but UTA people I've talked with say that once the development is built they will look like geniuses. I hope they're right.

And TransitAngst, that is some fine sleuthing you've done with those numbers. Operating expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour does put a new perspective on it.

My hope for FrontRunner's 15 minute frequencies is for it to expand slowly. For my huge double-track post, I don't think they need to wait for that to get started. If they were to run 15 minute service during just the peak hour in the evening, (perhaps another hour in the height of the morning rush, even though that one isn't as peaked as the evening rush), that alone might cause ridership to jump, as that is when people need the service the most.
I certainly agree that FrontRunner is best suited for the peak service, and that it is most cost effective to focus on the peaks rather than on all-day service. I don't think UTA should cut any mid-day service from their current levels (people like the flexibility to be able to travel all day), but could definitely expand service at peaks.

And a FrontRunner suplement bus service would be a fantastic way to handle sunday/late night/early morning travelers. UTA would do well to look into this too. And then why stop there? Why not have the FrontRunner suplement bus continue on past Ogden to Logan, sort of like a SLC-Park City Connect? I know there would be times when I would use it.

[Hatman]

NTD Numbers as an image. Click TransitAngst's link for the pdf.

Buses continue to surprise me with their per-mile cost. Even their cost per vehicle revenue hour is nearly $40 more than TRAX. I really don't understand why it's so much more, as that statistic remains constant if the bus is empty or full.

[asies1981]

The Hive Pass looks poised to return.

[Hatman]

I guess I forgot to hit 'submit' on my last post. I'll post it again.

I just occurred to me that BRT isn't its own service category in UTA's numbers yet. I am really curious to see how cost effective BRT will be compared to city and commuter buses. I think that with higher ridership, BRT may have a farebox recovery closer to TRAX, if not operating expenses per passenger or per hour.

Spcifically, I'm wondering where you got your wonderful infographic, TransitAngst, and if there are similar charts for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority - which includes the 'Health Line' BRT, and/or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - which runs the Orange Line BRT. Both of those systems are somewhat comparable to what UTA plans to build in Provo/Orem.

Also, 3 cheers for the Hive Pass' return! Now that a 'system' has been established for cities to provide lower-cost passes, hopefully more cities will jump onboard.

[TransitAngst]

Every transit agency that receives federal funds has to annually submit that info to the National Transit Database.

Here is the website:

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/

Click on NTD transit profiles to the right to find specific agencies.

Looking at LACMTA, they do have a separate category for BRT.

I haven't looked through many agencies profiles, but it seems like transit costs per hour, for different modes, vary greatly between agencies. Take a look at the bottom of the page below for some numbers from 2011:

http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/What-Are-The-True-Operating-Cost-Differences-Between-Bus-And-Light-Rail.htm

I don't know why LR is so much lower than bus for UTA. It has dropped rapidly in cost. Just four years ago it was 124 per hour. Maybe with the new lines, they found some way to schedule the trains more efficiently (I can't see how this would make a 40 dollar difference)? Maybe some maintenance costs are being counted as capital costs?

Listened to a presentation by some UTA folks recently. They said one of the biggest financial barriers for developers to do TOD is parking: they have to provide it for residents and park and riders. UTA also wants the development to be somewhat dense--that means parking structures, which, according to the presentation, are on average 15,000 dollars per stall to build. If I remember correctly (could be wrong!) they said development would start at the Jordan Valley Station this year.

The hive pass...from asies' link: "Of the 3,200 passes sold, 300 passes were bought by first-time transit users." Sounds about right. I wish there had been more new riders. With those numbers I am kinda surprised they are keeping it, but I am glad they are giving it another shot with a monthly pass.

[Future Mayor]

You mentioned the Healthline by RTA in Cleveland. It is absolutely amazing how much development that spurred along the entire line. Of course is connects two major destinations, downtown and Cleveland Clinic/Case Western, with several other big attractions in between, including Playhouse Square & Cleveland State University (Go Vikings) both part of downtown, but also the Cleveland Playhouse and a tech corridor.

Cleveland has really benefited from the line. It was designed more like our Trax line however, as it is in a dedicated lane the entire way, and only has one lane of traffic on each side of it for the majority of the line, unlike our Maxx line on 3500 S.

I've been a bit disappointed with Maxx as it has a dedicated lane for a large portion but not the entire thing and when it does have dedicated stations they are in the middle of a 6 lane highway. I hope UTA will eventually dedicate the entire line to it's own lane, and maybe that can spur some development along 3500 S. I hope that once Fairbourne Station is built out that maybe the growth can continue along the Maxx line.

[Hatman]

I've never been to Cleveland, but their Health Line BRT is considered among the best in the country. It's got all the right aspects - dedicated lanes, raised platforms, ticket vending machines to allow boarding/exiting at every door, and above all a great corridor to run through.

I really think, though, that the Provo-Orem BRT is going to give it a run for its money. There's so many college students and malls and downtowns and other transit connections (including FrontRunner) that it's success is practically assured.

But how will it compare to UTA's other modes, cost wise? Thanks to the direction of TransitAngst, I've been able to come up with this chart:

Here are some links to the sources:
UTA's Numbers
RTA's Numbers
LAMTA's Numbers

Some things to note: Cleveland's BRT has an AMAZING 81% farebox recovery, using fares that are less than UTA's $2.50 flat fare. A potential reason for that is the low length of average trip, which is 2.64 miles. This means the average rider pays just over $0.50 per mile, which is what UTA is charging in its distance-based-fare experiment going on now at BYU in Provo. I wouldn't count on UTA's numbers being quite so fantastic, though, as many riders will use BRT to transfer, which means that costs and revenue are shared with other modes. Still, though, I am extremely hopeful.
The BRT in Los Angeles is sort of a different animal, because the average length of trip is 6.33 miles. The Provo-Orem line is only 10.5 miles long, and It really isn't designed for people to ride the full length of the line.
So somewhere in between those two opposing examples - that is where I expect UTA's Provo-Orem system's performance to end up. As for other lines - such as an upgraded MAX, the performance will probably be more similar TRAX.
This chart shows that when the conditions are right, BRT can outperform LRT. It isn't the vehicle that matters so much, but the level of service that can be offered.

Lastly, I included Van Pool numbers for LA as well, because they were awesome. More than any other mode, Van Pool is the most efficient mode of transport, in terms of farebox recovery and passengers vs operating costs.
It just goes to show that once autonomous taxis come into their own, public transit systems are going to have to leap into action in order to to keep up.... but that is a subject for a certain and separate blog of mine...

[Hatman]

Happy birthday, UTA! 45 years old!

And what better way to celebrate than a full-scale train wreck....

LINK

[Hatman]

TRIP, a national transportation research group, has released a list of projects they believe to be the most important in Utah's future. The report is HERE, but here's a little sumary from a Tribune article:
Finish the Mountain View Corridor freeway. The $1.3 billion project in western Salt Lake and Utah counties "will help alleviate the highest volume of areas of I-15, which are frequently congested and have limited options for widening," the study said.

• Widen and reconstruct State Road 201 in Salt Lake County. The $103 million project is needed, it said, because "increasing congestion has slowed the flow of freight, goods and commuters."

• Optimize Utah Transit Authority bus service. It calls for adding more routes and more frequent service at a cost of $256 million.

• Connect FrontRunner trains better to the rest of the UTA system. That includes bus rapid transit systems or circulator buses from FrontRunner stations in Ogden, Murray, south Davis County, South Jordan, Sandy, Orem and Provo.

• Double-tracking FrontRunner. In stretches, it now has only one track that trains in both directions must share. It said double-tracking at a cost of $600 million would offer more reliability, frequency and capacity.

• Adding two general purpose lanes on I-15 in Box Elder and Weber counties. The $195 million project would add two lanes on 13 miles of the freeway.

• Adding passing lanes on U.S. 40. The $108 million project in the Uinta Basin would "help slow-moving trucks to traverse steep grades with less interference to traffic flow."

• Extending TRAX from Draper to Lehi. The study estimates it would cost $1.5 billion.

• Widen and reconstruct segments of I-15 in Washington County. It said a $133 million project is needed to "aid the flow of freight, goods and commuters."


All fine ideas. Regarding the FrontRunner double-tracking bulletin (since we have been discussing that recently), the paper says this:

Electrification and Double Tracking of Commuter Rail First Phase. This $600
million project would allow for double tracking and electrification on the commuter
rail line, enabling UTA to operate the commuter rail line much more reliably and
provide the capability to offer more frequent service. The project will also enable
UTA to move from diesel to electrical power, thereby reducing direct emissions in the
urban area.

The reached about the same cost estimate as I did in my proposal a few posts ago, but they also included electrificiation. I can't tell if 'First Phase' means they were only looking at the North section or if this is an incremental plan like I proposed. I do know that if projects such as double tracking and electrification are both done at once, the cost goes down from the $10 million per mile and $20 million per mile estimates that UTA uses.

Interesting stuff. It's all worth reading.

[asies1981]

Article on transit access in Salt Lake City.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Article on transit access in Salt Lake City.

Interesting article. Can you clarify, if the study does so, if the large population gains that the study points to are based on percentage of population gain or actual population gain?

That can make a huge difference, because one tract, mostly formerly industrial, could have had 100 people living in it during the prior census, and could now have 200 residents. While that is 100% population growth, it's not significant overall growth. Depending on which type of population growth they used it could greatly skew the findings of the study.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Interesting article. Can you clarify, if the study does so, if the large population gains that the study points to are based on percentage of population gain or actual population gain?

That can make a huge difference, because one tract, mostly formerly industrial, could have had 100 people living in it during the prior census, and could now have 200 residents. While that is 100% population growth, it's not significant overall growth. Depending on which type of population growth they used it could greatly skew the findings of the study.

The diagram shows areas that had the largest growth, but the westside census tracts also had some of the largest gains in number of people as well and are some of the largest in population in the city.

[Makid]

2014 Fourth Quarter Ridership Report:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Q1 2014:

Frontrunner - 15.2K up 18.29% over Q1 2013 at 13.0K
Trax - 65.8K up 11.71% over Q1 2013 at 59.7K
Bus - 71.4K down -7.05% over Q1 2013 at 76.8K

Q2 2014:

Frontrunner - 15.0K up 18.64% over Q2 2013 at 12.7K
Trax - 61.8K up 6.79% over Q2 2013 at 57.6K
Bus - 64.1K down -4.44% over Q2 2013 at 66.6K

Q3 2014:

Frontrunner - 16.1K up 16.51% over Q3 2013 at 13.9K
Trax - 67.8K up 6.44% over Q3 2013 at 63.8K
Bus - 62.8K down -5.58% over Q2 2013 at 67K

Q4 2014:

Frontrunner - 16.8K up 12.1% over Q4 2013 at 14.7K
Trax - 68.5K up 0.21% over Q4 2013 at 68.1K
Bus - 72.1K down -0.65% over Q4 2013 at 72.2K

Total for all transit options - 166.K up 1.06% over Q4 2013

Trips through 2014

Frontrunner: 4,416.1K riders equating to a 16.20% increase over 2013.
Trax: 19,868.7K riders equating to a 6.02% increase over 2013.
Bus: 18,581.0K riders equating to a -4.44% decrease over 2013.
All Transit: 45,078.4K riders equaling an increase of 2.18% gain over 2013 year to date.

The 1st point that sticks out is that FrontRunner ridership is still gaining riders at greater than 10% Year over year. I wonder if it will continue this increase in 2015.

The 2nd point that sticks out is that the decline of bus ridership appears to be nearing an end. With Q4 only down 0.65% or roughly .1K in riders, we should start to see small increases over time.

These increase may not lead to direct increases in Trax and FrontRunner as bus service is slowly increased (quicker with additional funding).

One thing that may help to increase service is that sales tax revenue was up in SL County by 6.5%:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2275702-1...-up-65-percent

County sales taxes up 6.5 percent in 2014

This should mean that UTA will receive additional revenue that should allow them to continue their bond repayment schedule while also increasing transit service.

While a transit tax increase option hasn't yet passed the State Legislature, I am hopeful that the option will pass and be signed by the Governor. I also would expect it to pass the various Counties/Cities where the tax would be leveraged for increased transit options.

Barring the tax not passing, ridership should continue to grow through growth and density increases throughout the service areas.

[airhero]

Also, I wonder if the point of the mountain project will affect Frontrunner ridership. I wouldn't want to drive through that every day. That's probably going to be the worst freeway construction since the reconstruction prior to the olympics

[Hatman]

All good news from the ridership report. I wish the buses would do a little better, but I guess if I really wished that, I would take the bus every now and then instead of riding my bike.
As a daily Frontrunner rider, I do hear many people on the train complain about some I-15 project. So I guess some disgruntled motorists have fled to the train. I don't know how many more of them the train can hold, though; my train (south from Murray at 5:22) is already standing room only, and it's getting to the point where you're lucky if you have a place to stand! I can't find a seat until the train reaches Lehi. Then, maybe I'll find a booth with only three people there.
It's actually kind of refreshing after sitting down all day...

[Makid]

Well, HB0362 passed late last night on Senate revision 6. This is the bill to raise the gas tax 5 cents per gallon while also converting it to more of a sales tax. It will be effective July 1st, provided it is signed by the Governor.

The other aspect of this bill was more contentious in the Senate, that is the the .25% increase in local sales tax for road and transit funding. It is still split .10% for Transit Agencies, .10% for Cities and .05% for the County.

This design is done to assist with strengthening the transit agency while allowing the Cities and Counties to use their share for increased service or transit/road projects within their boundaries.

The reason that this part was contentious in the Senate is that they wanted to just raise the tax in the bill rather than require it to be voted on by the public. They saw the need for the increase and felt it would be better to ensure it was passed.

The compromise on the bill was the House accepting a tax increase (gas tax) and the Senate accepting the voter aspect of the local funding option.

I can see things breaking out as the following for funding and expansion provided the Governor signs the bill and local populations vote for the increases:

In SL County: UTA will receive approximately 80% of the increase or .2%. This would their .10%, .5% from the County and .5% from the Cities. The other .5% of the Cities funds will be directed more locally (whether via an agreement with UTA or for roads/transit improvements).

I would expect SLC to use theirs as an agreement with UTA to construct the Downtown Streetcar, Expand the Sugar House streetcar the next 2 blocks, Trax Black Line and increased bus service.

I would expect South SL to use some of their funds to imrpove their Streetcar frontage, increased bus service and some road/transit improvements.

Outside of these improvements, I do think that Sandy will get its Frontrunner/Trax connections, multiple BRT Lines will be built/extended across the SL valley/south Davis County. FrontRunner double tracking and electrification will be started but gradually over the next 5 to 6 years. Ogden will have its streetcar, Orem/Provo BRT will be fastracked and the Trax Blue line extension will be speed up to the next 3-5 years.

With the Mountain Accord being pushed back for more local input, I do think that there won't be any general improvements to the Canyons until the next increase cycle unless by some chance Salt Lake is awarded the Winter Olympics in 2022 (yes, there is still an outside chance). This way there will be a pressing desire to fund the improvements quickly.

If the money is spent where the ridership increases will be the largest first and then spreading outward, the ridership fare increases should allow for further expansion or at least lowering the operation subsidies which would allow for faster bond repayments, which could allow for future transit expansion without future tax increases (over the next 15 to 25 years).

[Hatman]

Fantastic! To quote another group very happy with the legislature this cycle, "what a difference one year makes!"

Question: how soon will these local votes on the tax take place?